Talk:Homonym

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Homonym was featured in a "WikiWorld" cartoon: (click image to the right for full size version.)

Contents 1 Repetitive? 2 Debate over the correct name 3 Where should I factor in the following observation? 4 Reduced "to" 5 Cleave is not a heteronym 6 "Homonyms - Due Ewe No Witch Whirred Qualifies". 7 Another intro example

[edit] Repetitive?

The definition of the word is written in the ingress and in the definition. Isn’t one time enough? Eikern 23:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Debate over the correct name

The debate over the correct name: Homonyms vs Homophones: http://www.go2net.com/useless/useless/homonym.html (dead link) -- Ellmist Monday, November 25th, 2002

The discussion is not pointless at all. And the definitions as of homonymes, -phones, and -graphes as they are now seem obscure and unreasonable to me. I suggest the following classification: Homonymes: Words with different meaning but identical in writing or pronunciation; Homophones: Words which are pronounced the same; Homographs: Words which are written the same.

I agree with this classification. It seems to be the accepted definition. See http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=homonym The article in some places suggested that homonyms were always both; I tried to change that. JeremyStein 17:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

This topic is a complete rat's nest... practically every source seems to say something slightly different. I have stuck with the above definition as it seems to be the most popular, but tried to clarify further and also alert readers to the fact that these different interpretations are out there. Matt 16:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Where should I factor in the following observation?

I've seen a number of instances where non-native speakers (particularly Hindi-speaking people) use the spelling "their" for "there". There may be similar observations of L1 influence (native tongue influence) coupling with confusion with homophones that are not homographs. Where do we mention these (if at all this is verifiable)? -- Sundar 06:26, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

This is hardly limited to non-native speakers. Correct spelling of homophones is something that has to be taught, and not everyone learns it well. One sees it distressingly often in people who have been speaking English all their lives. Csernica 19:58, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reduced "to"

It is too dialectical. Nohat, it may be reduced when you speak naturally, but it sure isn't when I speak naturally. Csernica 19:55, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is not dialectical. There are no dialects that have distinct rules for the reduction of function words. Sociolects, perhaps, with reduction extremely mildly marked in the very highest acrolect. And it's certainly the case that the amount of reduction is in free variation, depending on speed of speech or social situation, but there are no dialects that differ on whether or not to ever takes a reduced form. There is no dialect where "to" always has a full vowel. Nohat 07:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I was talking about the example at hand, where I can detect in my own speech a much shortened vowel there but not a schwa. You said before that the vowel in this case is reduced and that the reduction is not dialectical. Perhaps it's just a bad example. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that English education causes people to lose the ability to speak naturally while at the same time being aware of their speech. For many people, when they think about the words, the spelling will influence the pronunciation in such a way that the way they pronounce it is inherently unnatural. In other words, when you're thinking about the sounds of the words you're saying (linguists call this "careful speech"), then the sounds actually change and the result is very different from what is called "normal speech". In normal speech, when to is an ordinary function word, not stressed or used contrastively, then it is always pronounced with schwa unless it comes before a vowel or at the end of the sentence. Here it is not used to contrast with any other words in the sentence, it comes before a consonant, and is not sentence final, so it is pronounced with schwa. If you are pronouncing it with a full vowel, you are probably speaking with "careful speech" and giving the word sentence stress or contrastive stress: "to much to do in two days". However, the unmarked reading for the sentence is to not give any stress at all to the word "to". This is not a dialectical variation, but simply an idiosyncrasy that results from thinking about what you're saying. Nohat 09:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cleave is not a heteronym

I removed the second sentence from:

The National Puzzlers' League calls homographs heteronyms. This term is particularly appropriate where the homograph, such as cleave, has two opposite meanings, "to split" and "to cling close".

Heteronyms are homographs that are not also homophones. Both meanings of cleave are spelledpronounced the same way, thus it is not an appropriate example. JeremyStein 18:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I think you meant to point out that both meanings are pronounced the same way? The two different meanings of "close" are a better example, perhaps. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. The two meanings of "close" would be a good example of a heteronym, but they aren't antonyms, so I still see no use for that sentence. JeremyStein 14:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Cleave is both a homonym and an auto-antonym (q.v.) --Jmptdc 14:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Homonyms - Due Ewe No Witch Whirred Qualifies".

< http://rogersreference.com/rrhomonyms.htm >:

"Homonyms - Due Ewe No Witch Whirred Qualifies".

Hopiakuta 23:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another intro example

Wouldn't it be better to have a "two, too, to" example in the intro? From the existing intro, it's not clear to me that "homonym" includes same-sound-different-spelling groups, as I don't think of those as the "same word". Thanks, William Pietri 16:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)